On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:25, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Of course. As we all know SCSI cables never break. There must
> > be something
> > about the IDE command-set which causes copper wires to corrode. :-#
>
> (I know this is a joke, but) actually there is. IDE has a
> wonderful feature of only
On Friday, April 5, 2002, at 03:34 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
Of course. As we all know SCSI cables never break. There must
be something
about the IDE command-set which causes copper wires to corrode. :-#
(I know this is a joke, but) actually there is. IDE has a
wonderful feature of only t
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:27, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 06:22 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Another thing, you should have a separate cable for each disk
> > you want to be
> > independant. So for RAID-1 you should have two cables so that a cable
> > failure won't lose y
On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 06:22 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
Another thing, you should have a separate cable for each disk
you want to be
independant. So for RAID-1 you should have two cables so that a cable
failure won't lose your data. For a RAID-5 with 5 disks you
want 5 cables.
This d
hi ya dave
ypppers on your comments...
another major point...
- raid protects aginst disk failure ... but if raid wont
come back online ... ( not mountable ) ... you lose all
data ...
-->> make sure your data is backed elsewhere
and tested
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Dave Sherohm
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:15, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> Don't know where you got the "typically 5 disks" bit from. RAID5
> costs you one drive's worth of capacity. Also, if I were to set up a
> 5-disk RAID5 for critical data, I'd go with 4 active disks, plus one
> spare.
I've noticed that 5 disks seem
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:29, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > Chunk size does not matter for RAID-1, but does matter for other RAID
> > levels.
>
> humm ..thought was the otehr way ... time for me to go look at some
> raid source code i suppose .. when time permits
The chunk size determines physical location of
Since I'm feeling bored at the moment...
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:29:28PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> typically a minimum of 2 disks used for raid0 or raid1...
> raid1(mirroring) protects against one disk failure
> ( one disk's capacity is used as a redundant copy and not for user)
>
hi ya russell
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:48, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > chunk size does NOT matter for raid5...
>
> Chunk size does not matter for RAID-1, but does matter for other RAID levels.
humm ..thought was the otehr way ... time for me to go look at some
9 matches
Mail list logo
